MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[verykiasu2010]

pirate:

Absolutely. That is why I suggested earlier that MOE should cap P1 and P2A to 70% of total vacancy. I also suggested that P2B should be capped at 25% of the remaining places, compared to the 50% now.


That doesn't address the first issue I brought up though.

why 70% why not 25% or 10% or 44% or 69% why 70% please justify for the sake of education.

is there a lie or secret research that say 70% is the magic number ? :evil:

[verykiasu2010]

limlim:

keroppi:

I was an alumni before joining the PSG. The schools my kids are attending do not accept PVs simply because there simply isn't a need to. The overwhelming support of parents means the school is never short-handed in any school activities. I guess that's because most parents these days know the importance of being involved in their kids' educational journey.

I wanted to join the PSG. but all the activities are on weekdays which parents have to work and those who cannot afford to contribute during working hours are deprived of a chance to volunteer for PSG.

not true

lots of activities are in weekend or holidays or evenings

they know alumni also need to earn a living

[verykiasu2010]

pirate:

They should join the alumni association before the child is born.

half agree. they should not only join (what for just a name on the register??) but should actively participate in alumni activities that bring good name to the school, they should also give time and money

[verykiasu2010]

ksi:

Actually alumni is not only contribution by effort alone. When the school calls for donation, having alumni group can encourage more collection because it is compelling to want to support the school for self and child and easier for the school to appeal to the alumni group who has an identity with the school. Having said that, the generous new parents who contribute now will have their children contributing as alumni in future.

:goodpost:

[concern2]

verykiasu2010:

to go further, must specify the SC's ancestors must all be born in Singapore, no immigrants are ever allowed. Must check Bukit Brown lah

But, but, some sections bulldozed already right? No proof how? :rotflmao:

Wa seh, why am I on this thread again.. :siam:
:idea: Only humor will keep me coming back!

[verykiasu2010]

concern2:

verykiasu2010:

to go further, must specify the SC's ancestors must all be born in Singapore, no immigrants are ever allowed. Must check Bukit Brown lah

But, but, some sections bulldozed already right? No proof how? :rotflmao:

Wa seh, why am I on this thread again.. :siam:

ya lor, can blame the government again ...... :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

i oso don noe why on this thread again, must be the weather lar :rotflmao: :evil:

[gtx108]

ana_mum:

Just happened to be reading this thread few days ago and would like to give my 2 cents worth..


The current system is indeed giving much priority to alumni. I am not proposing to scrap away the registration phase for alumni but will definitely appreciate if the authorities do something to fine-tune the current Phase 2 category.

(1)\tAgreed with parents who wanted their children to be in the school they have previously studied in, to share the same values and cultures. However, if parents think so highly about their alma mater, shouldn’t they joined the alumni association and active participate in the school activities even before their children enter the school? I can understand giving priority to alumni, especially those actively involved, but I truly don’t understand why should priority be given to those old boys and girls who refused to join the alumni association, not involved in any of the activities and not even in-touch with anything from their alma mater until their children need to register for P1. Then they’ll go for registration with their old report book or any documentations, which they have not touch for at least 2-3 decades, to prove they were previously from the school. Worse are those parents who only studied in the school for only 1-2 years, either transfer-in or out due to some reasons. IMHO, I think the authorities should do away with Phase 2A(2) and just have Phase 2A for alumni who actively involved in their alma mater.

(2)\tPhase 2A(1) & 2A(2) are given unlimited seats for application from the balance after Phase 1. Then the balance after Phase 2A(2) will be evenly apportion to Phase 2B (50%) & Phase 2C (50%). That means applicants under Phase 2A(1) & 2A(2) who are staying >10km away from the school will be given the seat against those staying within 500m but not under this Phase. Would this be fair for those staying near and yet not within reach due to limited seats? Why can’t the balance vacancies after Phase 1 be equally apportion to Phase 2A, 2B & 2C and the balance from Phase 2A will then be evenly allocate to 2B & 2C? That will definitely increase the chances for those staying within 1km or 2km especially when most people will probably fall under Phase 2C.

I must support you!! :udawoman:

[nms1]

verykiasu2010:

limlim:

[quote=\"keroppi\"]
I was an alumni before joining the PSG. The schools my kids are attending do not accept PVs simply because there simply isn't a need to. The overwhelming support of parents means the school is never short-handed in any school activities. I guess that's because most parents these days know the importance of being involved in their kids' educational journey.

I wanted to join the PSG. but all the activities are on weekdays which parents have to work and those who cannot afford to contribute during working hours are deprived of a chance to volunteer for PSG.

not true

lots of activities are in weekend or holidays or evenings

they know alumni also need to earn a living[/quote]I would disagree. my daughter's school runs virtually everything on weekdays. They have a Family Day once a year which is on a Saturday morning; that is the only opportunity to be involved without taking leave. And I noticed that even though I am a signed-up member of the PSG because they know that I work and my hours are restricted they never reach out to me for help, I have to reach out to them. For alumni that would be even harder as they are less in-touch with what is happening in the school on a day-to-day basis.

[pirate]

verykiasu2010:

not every school must have a website or have sufficient manpower to maintain one. you should volunteer

Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There are only 9 GEP schools in Singapore. Which one of the 9 does not maintain a school website?

verykiasu2010:

yes very much so, it is very obvious you don't agree, and you don't have to. putting up results has always been maligned as one-up-manship and boasting, so much so that parents and MOE are asking ST not to publish the sterling results of those school. perhaps your own philosophy is wrong, not the school's

Either you don't understand or are pretending not to understand. If the GEP school does not put up any results at all, that is fine. What I am against is putting up half-baked results inflated by GEP students just to show the school in as good a light as possible. Either don't put them up at all, or put up separate lists/tables. This is not for the benefit of present parents, but parents who are deciding which schools to register their children in.

verykiasu2010:

some parents even calling for pure-bred SC up to xx number of generations. your type ??

Now I really have to give you an 'F' in reading comprehension. This is not what they or I am saying here. But why so touchy?

[pirate]

verykiasu2010:

pirate:

Absolutely. That is why I suggested earlier that MOE should cap P1 and P2A to 70% of total vacancy. I also suggested that P2B should be capped at 25% of the remaining places, compared to the 50% now.


That doesn't address the first issue I brought up though.

why 70% why not 25% or 10% or 44% or 69% why 70% please justify for the sake of education.

is there a lie or secret research that say 70% is the magic number ? :evil:

Presently there is no cap, so it is 100%, and I think that is wrong. I pulled 70% out of the hat because that seems like a fair number. People can argue until the cows come home whether it should be 60% or 50% or 80% but ultimately a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Of course, there are some who think alumni should be allocated 0%. At least, I understand their point of view.

I would appreciate, at least, debating like an adult.